2 INTRODUCTION

It is intended in the following pages to present the text of the Bengal recension of the Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta, a well-known and important mediaeval devotional poem, ascribed to Līlāśuka Bilvamaṅgala. Along with it are also critically edited for the first time three Bengal commentaries, namely, the Kṛṣṇa-vallabha of Gopāla Bhaṭṭa, the Subodhanī of Caitanyadāsa and the Sāraṅga-raṅgadā of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, which support this recension, and which are interesting from their connexion with the Vaiṣṇavism of the Caitanya sect of Bengal.[^i_1]

I The text

The text of the Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta appears to exist in two recensions. The Śrī-vāṇī-vilāsa Press edition, with the Suvarṇa-caṣaka commentary of Pāpayallaya Sūri, of the work, published from Srirangam (no date) in Devanāgarī characters and apparently based upon South Indian manuscripts, presents the text in three parts or sections called Āśvāsas, consisting respectively of 107, 110 and 102 verses. But the Rādhāramaṇa Press edition, with the Sāraṅga-raṅgadā commentary of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, published from Murshidabad in Bengali characters in 1916 (2nd ed.) and based presumably on Bengal manuscripts, gives us only 112 verses, corresponding (with certain [[Pii]] changes of verse-sequence and additions) to the first Āśvāsa of the Śrī-vāṇī-vilāsa Press edition, and entirely omits the second and third Āśvāsas. This difference is also confirmed by the edition of the Bengal text based upon eleven manuscripts and containing two other Bengal commentaries, which we are presenting in the following pages.[^ii_1]

Most of the notices of the KK in the different catalogues of South Indian manuscripts agree in giving the text in three sections, although there is no agreement with regard to the number of verses assigned to each section. Thus, in M. Seshagiri Sastri’s Report,[^ii_2] it is stated that the work consists of three parts, but the notice of the Ms (with the SC) gives the colophons only of the second and third Śatakas, mentioning respectively 108 and 106 verses. Similarly, of the fifteen Mss of the KK noticed in the Madras Government Oriental Library catalogue, six contain the SC, but almost all (where the Ms in question is complete) give three sections of the text, although the catalogue omits all mention of the number of verses in each section in the different Mss.[^ii_3] The Devanāgarī Ms (no. 5176/1230) of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,[^ii_4] [[Piii]] noticed by Haraprasad Shastri contains the SC commentary and the metrical text in three separately paged parts, but the number of verses of each part is not recorded in Shastri’s catalogue.[^iii_1] In Eggeling’s catalogue of India Office manuscripts, again, we have two Mss of the work, one (no. 3905/2577) in Telugu and the other (no. 3904/1293) in Devanāgarī characters, which give also the SC commentary.[^iii_2] The first contains only the second and the third sections giving respectively 110 and 106 verses, while the second Ms gives the number of verses in the three sections as 111, 110 and 106 respectively. There are three other Devanāgarī Mss of the work in the India Office collection, which are without any commentary, but which also present the text in three sections.[^iii_3] The numbers of verses in the three Mss are as follows: (i) no. 3900/1605c. I-113, II-111, III-108, (ii) no. 3901/1994. I-105, II-105 (but the colophons speak of 112 verses in both these sections), III-89, (iii) no. 3902/74. I-106 (107-112 are also given but marked in the margin as omitted purposely by the copyist), II-109, III-67. The Telugu Ms noticed by Keith[^iii_4] contains 112, 111 and 104 verses respectively in the first, second and third Śatakas.

Of the West Indian Mss of this work no detailed information is available regarding the number of sections and verses in the reports of Bühler,[^iv_1] R. G. Bhandarkar,[^iv_2] Peterson,[^iv_3] and Kielhorn,[^iv_4] as well as in R. L. Mitra’s Bikaner Catalogue.[^iv_5] But one Ms of the KK written in Devanāgarī characters and belonging to the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society[^iv_6] appears to consist of three sections, having 105, 105 and 89 verses respectively. The Devanāgarī Ms of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (no. 5739/10416) noticed by H. P. Shastri[^iv_7] contains three [[Pv]] Śatakas, but the notice omits all mention of the number of verses in each Śataka. Of the Bhandarkar Institute Mss of the text, which we have examined, there is one in Devanāgarī script (no. 627 of 1883-84), which contains three sections (called Ullāsas) having 112, 108 and 112 verses respectively. There is also another Devanāgarī Ms, which calls itself KK (no. 628 of 1883-84) but the contents and arrangement of which are not the same as those in the printed text. It is really a conflated collection of devotional stanzas which includes a total of 410 verses. Although it is divided into four sections of separately numbered verses, the first three of which contain 100 verses each and the last 110, the sections are not marked by colophons, excepting a final colophon which, however, speaks of the end of the third Śataka! The Prapā commentary of Śaṅkara on the KK noticed by Kathavate,[^v_1] appears to comment on more than one Śataka.

In the Bengal Mss, on the other hand, the tradition appears to be uniform regarding the existence of the text in one section only, viz., the first. In Aufrecht’s Bodleian Ms no. 231 in Bengali characters which gives anonymously the SR commentary (112 verses),[^vi_1] and in [[Pvi]] no. 230, which gives anonymously the Subodhanī commentary of Caitanyadāsa (112 verses), we have the text in one section only. Of the two India Office Mss of the text in Bengali characters noticed by Eggeling,[^vi_2] the first (no. 3903/1177) is without any commentary and the second (no. 3906/823d) includes the SR. The verse-number of the second Ms, which apparently consists of one section, is not given in Eggeling’s notice, but the first is said to contain 112 verses in one section. There are also three Mss in the Bhandarkar Institute, two of which (no. 566 of Viśrāmbāg I and no. 334 of 1892-95) are in Devanāgarī and one (no. 477 of 1891-95) in Bengali script. They present the work in one section only containing 112 verses, and agree generally with the Bengali printed text. The Ms no. 326 of 1884-87 of the same Library, which contains the Subodhanī of Caitanyadāsa, has the same number of section and verse.[^vi_3] These indications are confirmed by five Mss of the KK in the Dacca University collection which we have utilised in the present edition.[^vi_4] [[Pvii]] They are all Bengal Mss written in Bengali characters, one of them (no. 2464) containing the Subodhanī of Caitanyadāsa and the remaining four giving the more popular SR of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja. In all of them the text consists of 112 verses in one section (the first) only, as given in the printed Bengal edition referred to above.

It is clear that most of the Bengal Mss, as well as the printed Bengal edition[^vii_1], agree in giving definitely one section, viz., the first, with 112 verses; but there is no agreement in the respective number of verses in the so-called three Śatakas or Āśvāsas of the South Indian Mss and printed edition.

A comparison of the Bengal text with the first Āśvāsa of the South Indian text (as in the printed edition) reveals the fact that, barring inevitable differences of reading, they substantially agree, even if there are certain additions and one undoubted altera- [[Pviii]] tion in the respective order of verses. The Bengal and the South Indian texts contain a total respectively of 112 and 107 verses. The following table will show these correspondences and differences, the figures indicating the numbering of the verses in the two texts:

Bengal Text	South Indian Text
1-46	1-46
48, 47 (Gopāla Bhaṭṭa’s text; but Caitanyadāsa and Kṛṣṇadāsa transpose as in South Indian text)	transposed as 47, 48
49-56	49-56
57 (mauliś candraka-bhūṣaṇo)	omitted
58-66	57-65
67, 68	transposed as 67, 66
69-90	68-89
91 (kānta-kaca-grahaṇa°)	omitted
92-97	90-95
98 (suśrūṣase śṛṇu yadi)	omitted
99-101	96-98
102 (bhavanaṁ bhuvanaṁ)	omitted
103 (devas trilokī°)	omitted
104-112	99-107

It is remarkable that both the recensions contain more than 100 verses in the first section. If the designation Śataka given by Pāpayallaya Sūri[^viii_1] is meant to indicate the definite number of one hundred verses, then one must hold that the work shared the same fate of interpolation as the earlier Śatakas of Amaru and Bhartṛhari. But in the Srirangam edition the sections [[Pix]] have the designation of Adhyāya and Āśvāsa,¹ while in some of the Mss of the Madras Government Oriental Library the designation Adhyāya only is given. In a Devanāgarī Ms of the Bhandarkar Institute the sections are called Ullāsas. We cannot, therefore, be really certain that the term Śataka is used literally to imply that each of the sections contained the exact number of one hundred verses. But from the comparative analysis of the two recensions given above we can infer that with regard to the first section of the work, leaving aside usual variae lectiones and the question of the genuineness of a few additional verses, as well as one or two alterations of verse-sequence, both the recensions show striking agreement with respect to at least 107 verses.

But the textual problem becomes more difficult when we come to the second and third Aśvāsas found in the South Indian recension. The Bengal tradition appears to know nothing of these two Aśvāsas, and uniformly presents only the first section of 112 verses as the genuine text of the KK.

Bengal tradition

The Bengal tradition appears to have originated from the time of Caitanya (1486-1533 A. D.), who is reported to have discovered and brought the KK from his pilgrimage in Southern and Western India and introduced it to his followers; and from his time it became one of the sources of the religious inspiration of Bengal Vaiṣṇavism. Caitanya is said to have been so struck by its high devotional value that he not only commended it in superlative terms to his disciples but it also became one of the mainsprings of his own [[Px]] erotico-religious experiences.²

Influence

It certainly exercised, along with Jayadeva’s Gīta-govinda, a great influence on the emotionalism of the Bengal Vaiṣṇava faith. It inspired similar lyrics and was quoted as authoritative in the treatises on Bhakti-Rasa-Śāstra composed by Rūpa Gosvāmin and others.³

Commentaries

Several commentaries came to be written on it, as on the Gīta-govinda, by the Bengal Vaiṣṇava sect, explaining its esoteric religious significance.⁴

Of these commentaries the Kṛṣṇa-vallabha of Gopāla Bhaṭṭa, an immediate disciple of Caitanya, appears to be the earliest;
but in the same century, another Bengal Vaiṣṇava, Caitanyadāsa, who appears to have been in charge of the Govinda temple at Vṛndāvana, wrote another commentary entitled Subodhanī.

A little later, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, who eulogises the poem enthusiastically in his standard Bengali work on Caitanya’s life and career,⁵ composed the more popular and elaborate Sāraṅga-raṅgadā, which is printed in the Bengal edition of the text mentioned above.⁶

[[Pxi]] It would thus appear that the tradition regarding the KK obtaining in Bengal from the beginning of the 16th century is not altogether negligible.

Pāpayallaya Sūri

The date of Pāpayallaya Sūri, on the other hand, is not known, but he could not have been a very early writer. As he refers to the well-known commentator Mallinātha (Peddibhaṭṭa), who flourished in the 14th century, he must have lived considerably after that date. But if he flourished in the 15th century⁷ and if at that time the text of the KK was known in three Aśvāsas as he presents it, it is not likely that Caitanya would have brought back to Bengal the tradition of only one Śataka of the work, on which his immediate disciples and followers wrote commentaries. It would, therefore, be reasonable to assume that the two other Śatakas apparently unknown to him but known to Pāpayallaya Sūri and [[Pxii]] to comparatively recent South Indian and Western Mss, arose at a somewhat later date.+++(5)+++

Having regard to the first Śataka, again, it cannot indeed be maintained that either the Bengal or the South Indian recension was entirely free from interpolation; but it is certainly remarkable that the tradition of the Bengal Mss, as well as of the three Bengal commentaries of Gopāla Bhaṭṭa, Caitanyadāsa and Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, is not only uniform with regard to the presentation of the text in this section only, but is also positive with regard to the exact number of 112 verses in this section. But this—cannot be said of the South Indian Mss, which undoubtedly accept two other sections uniformly, but the tradition of which is uncertain with regard to the respective number of verses in the three sections they include.⁸

Padyāvalī

[[Pxiii]] Another circumstance raises a legitimate doubt regarding the genuineness of the second and third Śatakas of the poem included in Pāpayallaya Sūri’s Southern version of the text.

Rūpa Gosvāmin, who was a contemporary and disciple of Caitanya and flourished towards the end of 15th and the first half of the 16th century, compiled a Sanskrit anthology, entitled Padyāvalī, of Kṛṣṇaite devotional verses. In the concluding verse of this work he tells us (no. 387) that in compiling his anthology he has deliberately refrained from including the verses of Jayadeva and Bilvamaṅgala.⁹ The reason for this exclusion is not known, but it might have been due to the fact that the poems of Jayadeva and Bilvamaṅgala, as we know from the report of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja,¹⁰ were already too well known.

That Rūpa Gosvāmin has strictly fulfilled his undertaking is obvious from the fact that in his anthology not a single verse occurs which can be traced to the first Śataka of the KK (in either recension), which alone was apparently known to him as genuine.

On the other hand, some of the verses occurring in Pāpayallaya Sūri’s second and third Aśvāsas are given in Rūpa Gosvāmin’s anthology, not with Bilvamaṅgala’s name but ascribed to different authors or cited anonymously. We give below the verses that are common, with references also to other anthologies or works in which some of them occur:¹¹ [[Pxiv]]

Pāpayallaya Sūri’s Text

Second Aśvāsa

(a) ii, 59 (śambho svāgatam) | Padyāvalī No. 146 (Mayūrasya) [SKM i, 53, 1 (Mayūrasya)]

(b) ii, 63 (kiñcit kuñcita-locanasya) | Padyāvalī No. 130 (Maṅgalasya) [SP 115 (Bilvamaṅgala-śrīcaraṇānām) = Sbhv 37 (Kāśyapi)]

(c) ii, 70 (ete lakṣmaṇa jānakī-virahiṇām) | Padyāvalī No. 252 (Subhaṅkasya) [SKM i, 53, 3 (Subhaṅkasya), Hemacandra p. 90 (anon.)]

(d) ii, 72 (rāmo nāma babhūva) | Padyāvalī No. 150 (Kasyacit) [SP 120 (Vasundharasya) - SML ii, 91 (Vasundharasya), Rasārṇava-sudhākara, p. 115 (anon.)]

(e) ii, 102 (aṁsālambita-vāma-kuṇḍala-dharam) | Padyāvalī No. 47 (Kasyacit) [SRBh, p. 26, no. 182 (anon.)]

(f) ii, 107 (sandhyā-vandana bhadram astu) | Padyāvalī No. 79 (Śrī-Mādhavendra-purī-pādānām) [SRBh, p. 387, no. 104 (anon.)]

(g) ii, 108 (he gopālaka) | Padyāvalī No. 36 (Śrīvaiṣṇavasya)

Third Aśvāsa

(h) iii, 82 (phullendīvara-kānta°) | Padyāvalī No. 46 (Śāradākārasya) [anon. in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa i, p. 190, vilāsa 3]

(i) iii, 84 (dadhi-mathana-ninadaiḥ) | Padyāvalī No. 142 (Kasyacit)

(j) iii, 85 (tamasi ravir ivodyan) | Padyāvalī No. 51 (Śrīmad-Vyāsa-pādānām)

(k) iii, 102 (yā prītir vidurārpite) | Padyāvalī No. 117 (Kasyacit)

It will be seen from the references noted above to other works and anthologies that some of the verses in question are found quoted with other names; but, with one exception, none of them have been ascribed to Bilvamaṅgala. The one exception refers to item (b) above, which the SP assigns to Bilvamaṅgala directly. But the fact that the same verse is cited anonymously in the Sbhv and is assigned in the Padyāvalī to Maṅgala makes the ascription a matter of uncertain value; and it is possible that the ascription in the SP may have arisen from a natural confusion of the names Bilvamaṅgala and Maṅgala. It is interesting to note in this connexion that of the three other verses (nos. 72, 73 and 130) assigned to Bilvamaṅgala in the SP, the only one (no. 72) that is traceable in the KK occurs in the second Aśvāsa [[Pxv]] (ii, 28), while no. 73 occurs in the Bilvamaṅgala Koṣa-kāvya (no. 60) which will be noticed below.

[[Pxv]] Not much reliance need be placed upon the testimony of ascriptions in the anthologies, which in itself is indeed not always unimpeachable; but the case of the Padyāvalī with reference to the verses of Bilvamaṅgala stands on a somewhat different footing.

Rūpa Gosvāmin makes a distinct statement that he is studiously avoiding citations of Bilvamaṅgala’s verses. Not a single verse is cited by him which occurs in the first Śataka; but certain verses, cited by him under other names or anonymously, are found in the second and third Aśvāsas of Pāpayallaya Sūri’s South Indian version. This undoubtedly indicates that Rūpa Gosvāmin, following the Bengal tradition, took the first Śataka as genuine, but it also raises a suspicion that the second and third Aśvāsas of the Southern recension may have been put together at some later time, partly with Bilvamaṅgala’s verses drawn from his other works (if the SP’s attribution is accepted) and partly with verses from other writers.

Other Rūpa citations

That Rūpa Gosvāmin knew only the first Śataka of the KK and did not accept the other two Śatakas as parts of the poem is also confirmed by the way in which he cites Bilvamaṅgala and his works in his Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu and its supplement Ujjvala-nīla-maṇi.

In the Bhakti-rasāmṛta (ed. Murshidabad 1924) there are six quotations with the direct superscription yathā karṇāmṛte. These are: unnamram asita° (p. 202), mādhuryād api madhuram (p. 203), akhaṇḍa-nirvāṇa-rasa (p. 379), amunyadhanyāni (p. 670), nibaddha-mūrdhāñjali (p. 671), tvacchaiśavam (p. 674). All these verses occur in the first Śataka of the KK respectively as: i, 54; i, 64 (= Bengal Text i, 65); i, 96 (= Bengal Text i, 99); i, 41; [[Pxvi]] i, 30 and i, 32. But in the Bhakti-rasāmṛta, again, Rūpa Gosvāmin cites some other verses with yathā bilvamaṅgale or with yathā bilvamaṅgala-stave.¹² These are:

Bilvamaṅgala:

• P. 296 cintāmaṇiś caraṇa°
• P. 386 ayi paṅkaja-netra
• P. 456 hastaṁ utkṣipya yāto’si = KK iii, 94
• P. 472 rādhā punātu = KK ii, 25

Bilvamaṅgala-stava:

• P. 626 advaita-vīthī-pathikaiḥ.

None of these verses occur in the first Śataka of the KK; but two of them, as noted above, are found respectively in the second and third Śatakas. Eggeling notes (op. cit. p. 1475) that four of these verses occur in the Sumaṅgala-Stotra (see below) ascribed to Bilvamaṅgala. In the Ujjvala-nīla-maṇi (ed. Kāvyamālā 95, Bombay 1913), again, Rūpa Gosvāmin cites only one verse (p. 493, stoka-stoka-nirudhyamāna°)¹³ with yathā karṇāmṛte, and this verse occurs in the first Śataka as verse no. 21. There are three other quotations with yathā bilvamaṅgale:

• P. 277 rādhe’parādhena vinaiva
• P. 285 ayi murali mukunda - KK ii, 11.
• P. 435 rādhā-mohana-mandirāt

None of these verses can be traced in the first Śataka of KK; and only one, as noted above, is found in the second. [[Pxvii]] A reference to the anthologies also reveals further interesting facts.

Sadukti-karṇāmṛta etc.

The SKM, which was compiled in Bengal in 1205 A. D., does not cite Bilvamaṅgala at all, an omission which probably confirms the story of Caitanya’s discovery of the work in the South and its introduction into Bengal. Nor does the Sbhv or SML quote Bilvamaṅgala.

On the other hand, some verses occurring in the second and third Aśvāsas of the Southern recension are ascribed to other authors or cited anonymously.

Apart from the instances given above, we may further refer to KK ii, 65 (kṛṣṇeṇāmba gatena rantuṁ adhunā) which is cited anonymously in SP 4016 (kasyāpi), SKM i, 51, 1 (kasyacit) and Sbhv 40 (keṣām api). This, however, appears to be an old verse, which Kṣemendra in his Aucitya-vicāra-carcā (ed. Kāvyamālā, Gucchaka i, p. 130) attributes to a poet named Caṇḍaka.

It is also significant that KK iii, 82 [see item (h) above], which is assigned to Śāradākāra in the Padyāvalī, is cited anonymously by Gopāla Bhaṭṭa in his Hari-bhakti-vilāsa. Gopāla Bhaṭṭa was a Vaiṣṇava who is said to have come from Southern India; yet the authorship of the third Śataka or of this verse from it seems to have been unknown to him or not recognised by him.

All these considerations make it very doubtful whether the second and third Aśvāsas given in the South Indian recension originally belonged to the poem itself. These two Śatakas are unknown as a part of the poem to the Bengal tradition. One cannot be absolutely sure about the question of genuineness or interpolation in a mediaeval Sanskrit text; but it seems probable that in Bengal, where the work was studied at a distance from its reputed place of origin and where it acquired a certain sanctity, the tradition of the text was better preserved and less modified. It [[Pxviii]] is undoubted that verses of other authors, some known and some unknown, went into the making of the last two Śatakas and swelled their bulk. But it is also possible that these two Śatakas prevailing in Southern India were not mere imitative supplements deliberately composed in their entirety by some later authors and tacked on to the original first Śataka. Their nucleus might have been drawn from verses occurring in other Stotra-like works composed by or ascribed to Bilvamaṅgala; and around this might have been woven verses of less known writers which, with their authorship forgotten, came to be confused with the genuine verses of Bilvamaṅgala.

On this point, however, it is difficult to arrive at a definite conclusion without examining in detail other works attributed to Bilvamaṅgala. With regard to such other works the items of information are too vague or meagre in the different catalogues of Mss in which they are noticed, and few of them are accessible or available in print. Thus, Peterson¹⁴ and Bühler¹⁵ mention respectively two works entitled Kṛṣṇa-bāla-caritra and Bāla-kṛṣṇa-krīḍā-kāvya, ascribed to Bilvamaṅgala, of which, except the fact that the Mss are of fairly recent date, no detailed information is available. R. L. Mitra, in the different volumes of his Notices registers several works attributed to Bilvamaṅgala, e.g., Govinda-Stotras,¹⁶ [[Pxix]] Bilvamaṅgala-Stotra¹⁷ and Kṛṣṇāhnika-kaumudī;¹⁸ but as the works themselves are not available, any textual investigation in the direction indicated above is hardly possible.

But Eggeling notices two other works attributed to Bilvamaṅgala, and his examination appears to support our position regarding the composition of the second and third Aśvāsas of the KK. The first work is a Ms of Sumaṅgala-Stotra (SS) by Bilvamaṅgala in Devanāgarī characters, with the Bhatta-vallabha [sic] commentary of Bhaṭṭa Vanamālin.¹⁹ This extensive poem, consisting of 383 verses, is of the same character as the KK; but it is interesting that it has much of its matter common to KK ii and iii, with which work it seems to be actually identified by the commentary. It is arranged according to topics in a totally different way,²⁰ but Eggeling notes that a large number of its verses actually occur in the second and third Śatakas of the KK. Only one of its verses, viz., the first Maṅgala-śloka, is found to be identical with the first Maṅgala-śloka of the first Śataka of the KK. But with reference to the second and third Śatakas we have: SS verse 2 = KK ii, 4; 5-ii, 55; 8-iii, 65; 13-ii, 54; 17-ii, 76; 21 = ii, 69; 23-ii, 98; 24-ii, 82; 25-ii, 15; 199 = iii, 29; 200-iii, 80. The second printed work²¹ men-[[Pxx]]tioned by Eggeling is entitled Kṛṣṇa-Stotra (KS), also ascribed to Bilvamaṅgala; it is said to consist of 109 verses (see below). The second and third Śatakas of the KK are stated to have much in common with this work, as well as with the Sumaṅgala-Stotra. Thus, KK ii, 4 = KS 109-SS 2; KK ii, 55 = KS 5-SS 5; KK ii, 54 = KS 87 = SS 13. In the same way, the British Museum Ms of the Bilvamaṅgala-Stotra, noticed by Bendall²² appears to have a verse (no. 119 veṇīmūle viracitā, cited in the extracts quoted) which occurs as KK ii, 7.

The Kṛṣṇa-Stotra which, Eggeling informs us, was printed at Calcutta in 1817, appears to be the same as was printed by Jayagopāla Tarkālaṅkāra²³ in Bengali characters at Calcutta in the Bengali era 1224 (= 1817 A.D.), along with a Bengali verse-translation of the text by the editor. It is almost identical (the main textual differences occurring after verse 83) with the Bilvamaṅgala-nāma [[Pxxi]] Koṣa-kāvya, printed in Bengali characters with a Bengali prose-translation at Radharaman Press, Berhampore (Bengal) and published at Murshidabad in 1907 (Saka 1829). The editor of the last-named work tells us that the text has been printed from a Ms belonging to one Bhuvaneśvara Viśārada of the village Bhāṅgāvāḍī in the district of Pabna, Bengal. It contains 101 verses as against 109 of the Kṛṣṇa-Stotra. On comparing it with the British Museum Ms no. 241, entitled Bilvamaṅgala-Stotra and described by Bendall, it appears that the first two and the last verses quoted by Bendall from his Ms are identical with the corresponding verses of this printed work, although the total number of verses in Bendall’s Ms is 109, agreeing with that of the Kṛṣṇa-Stotra, with which it may be identical. All these appear, therefore, to be different versions of the same work. We have probably also another version of the same work in the Bilvamaṅgala-Stotra described by Mitra (no. 1198), in which the first verse agrees but not the last, and of which the total number of verses is not given.

The printed works, Bilvamaṅgala Koṣa-Kāvya and Kṛṣṇa-Stotra, however, are interesting; for in them, again, a large number of verses from the second and third Śatakas of the KK can be traced, while not a single verse of the first Śataka occurs in them: a fact which appears to support our suggestion that the nucleus of these two later Śatakas of the KK was supplied by verses from other genuine or spurious works of Bilvamaṅgala. The corresponding verses are as follows: Pāpayallaya Sūri’s Text of the KK, Second Aśvāsa, 7-Bilvamaṅgala Koṣa-Kāvya (as given in our Appendix II) 101, 13 = 23, 15 = 98, 26 = 33, 28 = 12 (= SP 72), 31-35, 35-95, 43-96 (omitted in KS), 46 = 32, 51-69, 55 = 5, 57 = 9, 68 = 24, [[Pxxii]] 74-31, 77-36, 109-100; Third Aśvāsa 1 = 56, 2 = 43, 4 = 79, 5 = 27, 11-42, 12 = 80, 13-41, 14-81, 15-82, 17 = 26, 19 = 57, 20 = 38, 22 = 39, 28-83, 29 = 30, 30 = 85 (omitted in KS), 31-84, 32 = 94, 33 = 29, 34-86, 35-89 (omitted in KS), 38 = 87, 39-88, 46 = 62, 48-63, 51-66, 53 = 64, 54-65, 50-90 (omitted in KS), 57-91 (omitted in KS), 61 = 93 (omitted in KS), 64-61, 72-50, 74-52, 75 = 53, 78-54, 79-55 (omitted in KS), 81-7, 85 = 22, 94-99. All these verses, with the exceptions noted, occur also in KS. The additional verses in KS which are found also in KK ii and iii are as follows: KS 40 = KK iii, 24; 53-iii, 73; 58-iii, 16; 67-iii, 50; 87 = ii, 54; 100 = ii, 98; 109 = ii, 4 (see Appendix II below).

It would appear from the above discussion of available materials that we can trace a considerable number of verses of the second and third Śatakas of Pāpayallaya’s text in other works attributed to Bilvamaṅgala, while the citations in the anthologies (including the Padyāvalī) assign some of the verses of these Śatakas to other authors. We can thus account for more than 30 out of 110 verses in the second Śataka and more than 40 out of 102 verses in the third Śataka, which are for the most part derived from the Bilvamaṅgala Koṣa-kāvya, the Kṛṣṇa Stotra, the Sumaṅgala-Stotra, or from other unknown works of Bilvamaṅgala, from which the Bhakti-rasāmṛta and Ujjvala-nīla-maṇi cite some verses. We should be able to trace also other verses if we could examine in detail all the works assigned by tradition to Bilvamaṅgala. But these instances are enough to raise the presumption that the nucleus of the second and third Śatakas, which probably arose in later times, was made up by verses culled from other poems ascribed to Bilvamaṅgala, but into its swelling bulk verses of [[Pxxv]] a similar character by other poets²⁴ also found their way.²⁵

[[Pxxv]]

II Theme

In the history of mediaeval Stotra literature the Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta deservedly holds a high place. It is a remarkable collection (Koṣa-kāvya) of erotico-mystic lyrics of considerable devotional fervour on the romantic theme of Kṛṣṇa. This theme must have been a living reality to the poet as well as to his audience. There has been a great deal of mediaeval scholastic interpretation, but no amount of theological subtlety can overlay the artistic and human appeal of the poem. Although made up of detached stanzas, the ardent longing of the poet-devotee for a vision of his deity, the wistfulness and pathos of his devotional hope and faith and the evident burst of joy and amazement in the fulfilment of his desire supply an inner unity which weaves them into a perfect whole. In spite of simplicity and directness the poem possesses all the distinctive features of a deliberate work of art. Its undoubted verbal melody and highly sensuous pictorial effect, authenticated by a deep sincerity of ecstatic emotion, make it a finished product of great lyric beauty. And yet these devout utterances do not represent a professional effort, but a born gift, or a gift acquired through worship and aspiration. It is, however, a gift or an enthusiasm, which is in fact an inspiration, a mood of divine madness which draws from visible and familiar things an intuition of elevating joy. It is not the systematic expression of religious ideas but their fusion into a whole in a notable poetical and devotional personality, expressing itself in a novel yet familiar mode of utterance, which makes these spiritual effusions so remarkable. The work, therefore, is not only a noteworthy literary production of great charm, but also an important document of mediaeval Bhakti-devoutness; and the two aspects can hardly be separated. Like Jayadeva’s Gīta-govinda, which is comparable to it in many respects and which was probably the result of a similar devotional tendency, the poem is one of the best examples of that erotic mysticism which supplies inspiration to most of the mediaeval Vaiṣṇava lyrics in Sanskrit as well as in the vernacular. Devout yet sensuous, it expresses, as Jayadeva’s poem does, fervent religious longings in the intimate language of earthly passion, and illustrates finely the use of love-motif in the service of religion. But, while Jayadeva’s achievement lies more in the direction of literary form, the charm of Bilvamaṅgala’s poem consists [[Pxxvi]] in its harmonious blending of a quasi-amorous and exceedingly human sentiment of devotion with the sheer beauty and music of words. It is no wonder, therefore, that the Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta, like the Gīta-govinda again, became a rich source of literary inspiration, as well as of religious emotion, in mediaeval India; for both as a religious and as a literary document, its erotico-mystical attitude, involving a devoutly emotional spiritualisation of sensuous forms and ideas, is personal in ardour, concrete in expression and sincere in appeal.

Not much authentic information is available with regard to the author himself. Pious legends connect him with different localities and different monastic orders, and envelop his personality in a shroud of myth; but his exact date as well as the sect to which he belonged has not yet been determined. Some legends²⁶ connect him with Calicut and with the temple of Padmanābha at Trivandrum; while another tradition makes him a pupil of Padmapāda [[Pxxvii]] at the Saṁkarite monastery at Trichur. Farquhar²⁷ thinks that Bilvamaṅgala flourished early in the fifteenth century and belonged to the Viṣṇusvāmin sect. As very little is known of this sect, and as Somagiri, who is acknowledged by Bilvamaṅgala himself as his Guru in this poem, was apparently a Giri ascetic of Śaṅkara’s Daśanāmī order, Bilvamaṅgala’s affiliation to the Viṣṇusvāmin sect is extremely doubtful; and there is no evidence to support the date assigned. Recently, however, the traditions of three Bilvamaṅgalas have been recorded,²⁸ which undoubtedly makes the problem still [[Pxxviii]] more complicated. The view, referred to by Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja in his comment on KK i, 110 that Līlāśuka refers, by the familiar device of punning, to his parents, Nīvī and Dāmodara, appears to be likely; while Īśāna-deva, mentioned in the same verse, may refer in the same way either to god Śiva, or more likely, to some person occupying a reverential position in relation to the author.

We have already indicated elsewhere²⁹ that the original inspiration of these devotional poems comes undoubtedly from such store-house of romantic Kṛṣṇa-legends as the Śrīmad-bhāgavata and other Kṛṣṇaite Purāṇas of a similar character. The importance of Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta in Bengal Vaiṣṇavism is explained by the legend, narrated by Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja,³⁰ of Caitanya’s discovery of this work during his South Indian pilgrimage. We are told by this Bengali biographer, who wrote within one century of his passing away, that Caitanya was so struck by its high devotional value that he brought back the work with him; and like Jayadeva’s Gīta-govinda, it became the source of emotional religious experience of himself and his disciples. Of its influence on the emotionalism of the Bengal faith there can be no doubt. It must have inspired Prabodhānanda, Rūpa, [[Pxxix]] Raghunātha and others in the writing of similar Stotras; it was acknowledged and cited as authoritative in the Rasa-śāstra of Caitanyaism; it was adapted into Bengali verse by Yadunandana-dāsa;³¹ and, as in the case of Jayadeva’s poem, several commentaries on it were composed by the Vaiṣṇavas of the Bengal school.

[[Pxxix]]

III Gopala bhaTTa

Of the Bengal commentaries the earliest appears to have been the Kṛṣṇa-vallabha of Gopāla Bhaṭṭa, son of Harivaṁśa Bhaṭṭa and grandson of Nṛsiṁha of the Drāviḍa country.

The gosvAmI?

Although a very late and not always a reliable work, the Bengali Bhakti-ratnākara of Narahari Cakravartin refers to this commentary when it states³² that Gopāla Bhaṭṭa composed a Tippanī on the KK, which was a source of great delight to the Vaiṣṇavas; while Manohara-dāsa, another Vaiṣṇava of the Caitanya sect, in his Bengali Anurāga-vallī quotes and comments on the two Maṅgala ślokas of Gopāla Bhaṭṭa’s commentary and declares his authorship of the same.³³

But this is not the only work of an exegetic kind that Gopāla Bhaṭṭa appears to have written. That he [[Pxxxi]] was also an Ālaṁkārika, interested in erotic Rasa-works, is clear from the fact that he wrote a commentary, entitled Rasika-rañjanī, on Bhānudatta’s Rasa-mañjarī.³⁴ The second opening verse of this commentary informs us that its author Gopāla Bhaṭṭa was a Brahman of the Drāviḍa country;³⁵ and the first of the two concluding verses, which is identical with the first of the two concluding verses of the Kṛṣṇa-vallabha (śrīmad-drāviḍa), gives the names of his father and grandfather respectively as Harivaṁśa Bhaṭṭa and Nṛsiṁha.[^xxxi_3]

Rasika-rañjanī

This commentary, of which no Ms in Bengali characters has yet been found, [[Pxxxii]] might have been composed, if the author is identical with the Gopāla Bhaṭṭa of the Caitanya sect, before Gopāla Bhaṭṭa joined the sect; and we do not find in it any reference to or citation from the treatises on the Rasa-śāstra of the Bengal school, as we do in his Kṛṣṇa-vallabha. Its Ālaṁkārika point of view does not seem to have been coloured by any Vaiṣṇava prepossession.

Rasa-taraṅgiṇī

The Kāvyamālā edition (Gucchaka iii, p. 111 footnote) of Rudra’s Śṛṅgāra-tilaka mentions another incomplete commentary on Rudra’s work by Gopāla Bhaṭṭa, which is entitled Rasa-taraṅgiṇī; but no details about the work or the author are given and no other manuscript of this work is known to exist.³⁶

Orthodox accounts

The accounts we possess of Gopāla Bhaṭṭa in the orthodox records of the Bengal sect are meagre and somewhat conflicting. They do not also agree with the accounts given of himself by Gopāla Bhaṭṭa in his two commentaries mentioned above. We learn from the orthodox records that he was one of the six authoritative Gosvāmins of Bengal Vaiṣṇavism, men of great learning and piety, who were (with the exception of Jīva Gosvāmin the youngest) immediate disciples of Caitanya and who at his direction settled down at Vṛndāvana to the celibate life of ascetic devotees and to the producing in Sanskrit of the entire body of the poetical, ritualistic, theological and philosophical literature of the sect.³⁷

Gopāla Bhaṭṭa [[Pxxxiii]] is described, however, not as a native of Bengal, like his compeers, but as having come from Southern India. Practically nothing is recorded of him by Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja who must have known him quite well at Vṛndāvana. Narahari Cakravartin, who explains this extraordinary silence as due to an express prohibition, befitting his Vaiṣṇava humility, by Gopāla Bhaṭṭa himself,³⁸ undertakes to remedy this deficiency in his Bhakti-ratnākara,³⁹ which was written about the first half of the 18th century.

The tradition recorded by Narahari states that Gopāla Bhaṭṭa was the son of a learned Brahman of the South, named Veṅkaṭa Bhaṭṭa.⁴⁰ He became a pupil of Prabodhānanda,⁴¹ who is said to have been a brother of [[Pxxxiv]] Veṅkaṭa and an accomplished scholar in Sanskrit.

Prabodhānanda

In his Hari-bhakti-vilāsa Gopāla Bhaṭṭa is silent regarding his parentage, but informs us in one of its opening verses that he was a pupil of Prabodhānanda, who is dear to Caitanya.⁴² No mention, however, is made of this alleged relationship to Prabodhānanda. Prabodhānanda is said to have become a disciple of Caitanya and written in Sanskrit, among other works, Caitanya-candramṛta which in itself would lend support to the fact of his conversion,⁴³ Saṅgīta-mādhava which gives a treatment of the Vṛndāvana-līlā of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa after manner of Jayadeva, as well as [[Pxxxv]] [[Pxxxvi]] Vṛndāvana-mahimāmṛta in several Śatakas which, opening with a Namaskriyā to Caitanya, describes with elaborate devotional fancy the glories of Vṛndāvana as the abode of Kṛṣṇa.⁴⁴

Narahari also speaks of a tradition which [[Pxxxvii]] identifies Veṅkaṭa Bhaṭṭa, who is alleged to have been Gopāla’s father, with the Veṅkaṭa Bhaṭṭa, a Śrīvaiṣṇava, who invited Caitanya to his house near Śrīraṅgam on the Kāverī during Caitanya’s South Indian pilgrimage.

But in Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja’s account (Madhya ix, 82–166) of Caitanya’s stay at Veṅkaṭa’s house for four months there is no mention of Gopāla Bhaṭṭa and no definite data for the proposed identification. Narahari himself alludes to the doubt expressed by some on the matter; but as the account is either missing or given in variant forms in the other biographies of Caitanya,⁴⁵ its trustworthiness has not been proved.

Contrasts

On the other hand, Gopāla Bhaṭṭa, [[Pxxxviii]] author of the Kṛṣṇa-vallabha commentary on the KK, tells us in one of its concluding verses that he comes from the Drāviḍa country but that the names of his father and grandfather are respectively Harivaṁśa Bhaṭṭa and Nṛsiṁha.

It is remarkable that this self-description is repeated in Gopāla Bhaṭṭa’s Rasika-rañjanī and Kāla-kaumudī, but is not found in the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa and the doubtful Sat-kriyā-sāra-dīpikā, both of which works are directly associated with the Caitanya sect. The omission in the last two works can hardly be explained by the presumption that when Gopāla Bhaṭṭa composed them, he had changed his Āśrama and could not very well refer to his lineage; for his Kṛṣṇa-vallabha, which contains a similar reference, quotes directly from Rūpa Gosvāmin’s works and therefore could not have been written very early, while his other Vaiṣṇava ritualistic work, Kāla-kaumudī, which might have been written to supplement the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa, contains the reference.

Different or same?

The conclusion is evident that either the conflicting accounts regarding parentage and personal details given in the somewhat late orthodox records of Bengal Vaiṣṇavism are based on unreliable [[Pxxxix]] hearsay,
or the two Gopāla Bhaṭṭas were different persons.

If the latter alternative is accepted, then one of them was the author of the Rasika-rañjanī, the Kṛṣṇa-vallabha and the Kāla-kaumudī; he was, in spite of different lineage, subsequently appropriated or mistakenly identified with the Gopāla Bhaṭṭa of the Caitanya sect, the author of the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa, the confusion, if it is a confusion, arising from the fact that both of them belonged to Drāviḍa.

Unfortunately our data are insufficient for a definite conclusion.

We have, no doubt, the attribution of the Kṛṣṇa-vallabha to the author of the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa by the Bhakti-ratnākara and the Anurāga-vallī; but the authority, if not the authenticity, of both these late Bengali works may very well be doubted, and there is no other direct and independent evidence to decide the question conclusively.⁴⁶

Pros

There are, however, certain facts which should be mentioned in favour of the identity. From internal evidence the Kṛṣṇa-vallabha, as we shall see presently, appears to be the work of a Vaiṣṇava of the Bengal school, and it quotes directly (in both cases citing by the title of the work) from the two important Rasa-treatises of Rūpa Gosvāmin, which were held in the highest esteem by the Caitanya sect.

The text of this commentary also follows the Bengal recension of the KK; and it is remarkable that although he describes himself as a Drāviḍa Brahman, Gopāla Bhaṭṭa does not accept the South Indian text.+++(4)+++

Cons

Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja

Against these arguments, however, the somewhat curious fact may be urged that Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, in spite of his homage to Gopāla [[Pxl]] Bhaṭṭa as one of his Śikṣā-gurus, does not anywhere refer to Gopāla Bhaṭṭa’s commentary; nor in his own commentary on the KK does he follow the Kṛṣṇa-vallabha, but he accepts and expands the Subodhanī of Caitanyadāsa.

Chaitanya non-mention

It is sometimes stated that Gopāla Bhaṭṭa was already thirty years old when Caitanya paid his alleged visit;⁴⁷ but exactly how and when Gopāla was admitted into discipleship is uncertain. All that we are told is that he lived, in company with Rūpa, Sanātana and others, in the holy city of Kṛṣṇa (Vṛndāvana), a celibate life of laborious scholarship and great piety till his death, which must have occurred at a fairly old age.

It may be that he came to Caitanya during the years of Caitanya’s permanent residence at Puri, but of this there is no record. At Caitanya’s direction he is said to have joined Rūpa and Sanātana at Vṛndāvana, where Bengal Vaiṣṇavism had set up a religious colony.⁴⁸

The later Vaiṣṇava records inform us that when Śrīnivāsa Ācārya came to Vṛndāvana he found Rūpa and Sanātana dead, but Gopāla Bhaṭṭa and Jīva Gosvāmī were still living. He became a disciple of Gopāla Bhaṭṭa, studied the Vaiṣṇava Śāstra with him and Jīva Gosvāmin, and received the title of Ācārya from the latter.

[[Pxli]] The commentary Kṛṣṇa-vallabha on the KK, which is printed here, contains no Namaskriyā to Caitanya, but this alone is no ground for doubting the identity of its author with the Gopāla Bhaṭṭa who was a disciple of Caitanya and one of the six Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins of Bengal Vaiṣṇavism. The two Dūta-kāvyas (Haṁsa-dūta and Uddhava-sandeśa) of Rūpa Gosvāmin, as well as his Padyāvalī and Dāna-keli-kaumudī, do not also contain any Namaskriyā to Caitanya.

Consonance

There is nothing in this commentary of Gopāla Bhaṭṭa which does not subscribe to the tenets of Caitanyaism; on the contrary, it refers at the very commencement to the characteristic doctrine of the Bengal school that Kṛṣṇa is not an Avatāra but the supreme deity himself. It also believes in the other important doctrine of the Bengal school that the deity possesses a supersensuous and blissful form, which is adolescent (kiśora) and quasi-human (narakṛti) and which is the highest object of adoration.

Bengal recension

With very minor modifications it comments upon the Bengal recension of the KK, which is accepted by the Bengal sect, to the exclusion of the South Indian. As the commentary quotes directly from the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu and Ujjvala-nīla-maṇi of Rūpa Gosvāmin, the former of which work is dated expressly in Śaka 1463 (= 1541 A.D.), it could not have been composed before this date.⁴⁹

Hari-bhakti-vilāsa

Gopāla Bhaṭṭa’s most important and laborious contribution, however, to the theological literature of the Bengal school is his Hari-bhakti-vilāsa, also called Bhagavad-bhakti-vilāsa.⁵⁰ On this work there is a Sanskrit [[Pxlii]] commentary, called the Dig-darśanī which is attributed to Sanātana Gosvāmin.

The story of its origin, as given in the Bhakti-ratnākara states that the idea of composing a Vaiṣṇava Smṛti in Sanskrit originated in the mind of Gopāla Bhaṭṭa, but the work was actually composed by Sanātana in Gopāla’s name.

As the statements of the Bhakti-ratnākara, an admittedly late work of the 18th century, are not beyond doubt, the extraordinary reverence paid to Sanātana’s wide scholarship in the Vaiṣṇava Śāstra may be held responsible for this attribution. But Sanātana’s authorship of both the text and its commentary is also recorded by no less an authority than his nephew and associate Jīva in the list he gives of Sanātana’s work at the end of the (Laghu-) Vaiṣṇava- [[Pxliii]] toṣaṇī commentary on the Śrīmad-bhāgavata.

This is also confirmed by Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, a disciple of the six Gosvāmins at Vṛndāvana, who makes Caitanya teach (Madhya xxiv) a rapid summary of the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa to Sanātana with an express command to write a Vaiṣṇava Smṛti on the basis of the outlines taught. Moreover, Kṛṣṇadāsa expressly attributes this work to Sanātana in two passages (Madhya i, 35; Antya iv, 221).

These testimonies cannot indeed be lightly set aside, but in the work itself there is a distinct reference not to Sanātana’s but to Gopāla Bhaṭṭa’s authorship.

The second opening verse⁵¹ states that Gopāla Bhaṭṭa, a disciple of Prabodhānanda, who is dear to Caitanya, is compiling the Bhakti-vilāsa for the satisfaction of Raghunātha-dāsa, Rūpa and Sanātana.

In order to obviate this conflict, it has been presumed that Sanātana originally wrote a brief outline of the work, which Gopāla Bhaṭṭa elaborated with copious illustrations.⁵²

But for this presumption there is no evidence. That Sanātana had, besides writing its commentary, a direct connexion with the text, appears to be highly probable; at the same time, Gopāla Bhaṭṭa’s authorship, expressly stated in it, cannot be easily dismissed.

[[Pxliv]] It is undisputed that Sanātana, with his equally able brother Rūpa, was the centre of inspiration of the Bengal Vaiṣṇava group at Vṛndāvana; Gopāla Bhaṭṭa, as well as Raghunātha-dāsa and others, makes free acknowledgment of the fact. If, therefore, Gopāla is presumed to have merely elaborated a previous work of Sanātana,⁵³ it is extremely unlikely that he should have failed to acknowledge this basis of his labours and appropriated the work to himself, especially as he actually mentions Sanātana in the verse cited above.⁵⁴

It seems probable, therefore, that Gopāla Bhaṭṭa, as stated in the work itself, was the actual author of the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa, but the attribution to Sanātana might have arisen from some kind of close collaboration between this doyen of the Vaiṣṇava Śāstra and Gopāla Bhaṭṭa in making this voluminous compilation.

Mutual help, encouragement [[Pxlv]] and collaboration probably existed in the group working for a common cause; and with a characteristic modesty and selflessness none of them was probably anxious in scrupulously defining one’s share in the common literary enterprise.

The Hari-bhakti-vilāsa, consisting of twenty parts, is a voluminous and almost exhaustive metrical compendium in Sanskrit of the Bengal Vaiṣṇava ritual, of the corpus of social and religious practices of the sect.⁵⁵ It aims to cover all the compulsory and occasional rites and ceremonies, the duties of the householder as well as of the Saṁnyāsin, the rules for everyday service as well as the more elaborate ritual of temples and higher places of [[Pxlvi]] worship. It also gives copious directions regarding the various festivals connected with Kṛṣṇa as the deity. It is a work of extensive erudition; and each rule is supported and illustrated by profuse quotations from the Purāṇas, Tantra and other scriptures. It is, in brief, a complete guide to the Vaidhi Bhakti,⁵⁶ in which the devotional acts proceed from Śāstric injunctions

. Some omissions, however, are remarkable. No treatment is accorded to the purificatory rites, known as Saṁskāras, although a section is devoted to Initiation or Dīkṣā, in which the incorporation of Tantric ideas into Vaiṣṇava ritual is a noteworthy feature.

While festivals connected with deities other than Kṛṣṇa are rigidly excluded, an exception is made in favour of the Śiva-rātri; but the most important Vaiṣṇava festival of Rāsa-yātrā, which also appears to have been omitted by Raghunandana in his Yātrā-tattva, is conspicuous by the absence of all reference.

It is also important to note that this ritual authority nowhere recognises the cult of Caitanya-worship or the worship of Caitanya’s image, which became a remarkable feature of the later development of the faith.⁵⁷

The work departs in many respects from the accepted views of the Bengal sect. It lays down that Śūdras have no right to worship Śālagrāma.

There are no directions [[Pxlvii]] regarding the construction of the images of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa, although there are rules for those of Lakṣmī and Nārāyaṇa, Kṛṣṇa and Rukmiṇī and other forms of the deity. This Kṛṣṇa is Cakradhara (and not Dvibhuja Muralīdhara). Probably his lingering predilection for South Indian Vaiṣṇavism made Gopāla Bhaṭṭa emphasise in many passages the worship of Lakṣmī and Nārāyaṇa, which is inconsistent with the standpoint of Bengal Vaiṣṇavism.

The Rādhā-cult does not also figure prominently; Rādhā is omitted in the Dhyāna of Kṛṣṇa.+++(4)+++

Although it is often said that Vaiṣṇavism is entirely unritualistic, this extensive compilation itself will indicate the minute ceremonial requirements connected with some forms of Vaiṣṇava piety and its modes of worship.

The Vaidhi Bhakti may imply a comparatively mechanical process of spiritual realisation,⁵⁸ but it is also regarded as an important stage for the ordinary devotee; and as such, it requires in no less degree the care and attention of the theologians of the sect.

The task of preparing and prescribing an elaborate scheme of Vaiṣṇava Ācāra was undertaken by Gopāla Bhaṭṭa; and he was so successful in accomplishing it that his work came to be regarded as one of the most authoritative sources of the Vaiṣṇava ritualism and devotional practices of the Bengal school. Its popularity is also evidenced by the fact that an abridged Bengali adaptation was made by Kānāi-dāsa, a manuscript of which exists in the Dacca University Mss Library.⁵⁹ [[Pxlviii]]

Sat-kriyā-sāra-dīpikā

To Gopāla Bhaṭṭa is also ascribed another ritualistic work in Sanskrit entitled Sat-kriyā-sāra-dīpikā.⁶⁰ There is no account of the author or his family, but the opening passages name Gopāla Bhaṭṭa as the author and pay homage to Caitanya.

The work, much smaller in extent, is written mostly in prose with occasional verses or verse-quotations. It is apparently meant to supplement his larger work by dealing with the Saṁskāras, like marriage etc., which are omitted in the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa. Its contents are devoted to the duties of the Vaiṣṇava householder, both of the higher and lower castes, with a preliminary theological discussion on the supremacy of [[Pxlix]] Kṛṣṇa as the exclusive deity, on the superiority of Vaiṣṇava practices and on the necessity of the sacraments.

It is enjoined that particular care should be taken to avoid the worship of the inferior gods and the Fathers (Pitṛs), which is forbidden to a Kṛṣṇa-worshipper; and for this reason Smārta rules of penance etc. are held to be inapplicable, the Bhagavad-dharma being superior to every other Dharma.+++(5)+++

The fourteen ceremonies dealt with in this work are Vivāha (which occupies the largest space, including Adhivāsa, Vāsudeve-pūjā, Jñāti-karman, Sampradāna, Kuṣaṇḍikā, Pāṇi-grahaṇa, Uttara-vivāha, Bhojanādi-dhṛti-homa, Udīcya-karman etc.), Garbhadhāna, Puṁsavana, Sīmantonnayana, Śaṣyantī-homa, Jāta-karman, Niṣkrāmaṇa, Nāma-karaṇa, Pauṣṭika-karman, Anna-prāśana, Mūrdhābhighrāṇa, Cūḍā-karaṇa, Upanayana and Samāvartana.

The work is thus limited in scope, and the most important ceremony omitted is Antyeṣṭi or Śrāddha.

The author explains the omission by stating that a devotee of Kṛṣṇa should not worship the dead ancestor but offer Mahāprasāda and Bhagavac-caraṇāmṛta only to him, for otherwise the devotee would commit Nāma-sevāparādha.⁶¹

The author gives as his source the works of Aniruddha Bhaṭṭa, Bhīma Bhaṭṭa, Govindānanda, Nārāyaṇa Bhaṭṭa, Bhavadeva Bhaṭṭa, and the learned Drāviḍa Pundits who were authors of Paddhatis, as well as the Purāṇas, Tantras, Āgamas, Yāmalas and the older Śāstras of Manu, Hārīta etc.

The Vedic Mantras are utilised; the ceremonies, however, are described, for reasons stated above, not strictly in accordance with Smārta rites, but they show (as in the case of the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa) a considerable admixture of independent Vaiṣṇava as well as Tantric ceremonies and formulas.

From its contents, as well as [[Pl]] from its general trend and style, the work appears to be a later fabrication passed off in the name of Gopāla Bhaṭṭa.⁶²

Kāla-kaumudī

Another ritualistic work of Gopāla Bhaṭṭa, entitled Kāla-kaumudī, is noticed by Rajendra Lal Mitra.⁶³

The author in one of the opening verses describes himself as a Brahman of the Drāviḍa country; and the colophon describes him as “one whose refuge is the feet of Harivaṁśa Bhaṭṭa.”

It appears to be written in Sanskrit prose and verse; and from the enumeration of the contents, its [[Pli]] chief object appears to be the determination of auspicious times or Tithis suitable for religious rites and observances, including the Saṁskāras, the Dīkṣā, the various Vratas, festivals (e.g., Janmāṣṭamī), the installation of the image of the Bhagavat, and so forth. The work has not yet been printed; but the notice of the only known manuscript of it, written in Bengali characters, makes it clear that it was a fairly extensive compilation (folios 128, with 9 lines on a page) and dealt with the subject in some detail.⁶⁴

IV Caitanyadāsa

Identification

Of the second Bengal commentator, Caitanyadāsa, whose work is printed herewith, not much definite [[Plii]] information is available. In the concluding verse⁶⁵ Caitanyadāsa speaks of his being a worshipper of Govinda. Chiefly on this ground he has been identified with the disciple of Bhūgarbha Gosvāmin, named Caitanyadāsa, who was in charge of the Govinda temple at Vṛndāvana and who was one of those at whose direction Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja wrote his Bengali biography of Caitanya (Adi viii, 69).

He is sometimes identified with Caitanyadāsa-sena, son of Śivānanda-sena and brother of Paramānanda-dāsa-sena Kavikarṇapūra;⁶⁶ but of this identification there is no convincing evidence.

Brevity

This commentary, which Kṛṣṇadāsa also appears to have occasionally utilised in his own commentary, is in the form of brief glosses, which do not go into the details of the Rasa-śāstra or theology, and is inferior, both in substance and form, to Gopāla Bhaṭṭa’s more extensive and painstaking commentary; but it is [[Pliii]] simple, concise and clear, and often suggests interpretations which were appropriated and developed further by Kṛṣṇadāsa.

Bāla-bodhinī

Our Caitanyadāsa appears to have written also a Sanskrit commentary on the Gīta-govinda, entitled Bāla-bodhinī, of which one of the concluding verses⁶⁷ informs us, in almost the same wording, that its author was a worshipper of Govinda.⁶⁸

In some editions (but not in the Mss) the name of the author is given as Pūjārī Gosvāmin.⁶⁹ J. Eggeling⁷⁰ is right in identifying Pūjārī [[Pliv]] Gosvāmin with Caitanyadāsa; for this appears to be the name by which the author is sometimes popularly known in Bengal from the fact of his having been a priest (pūjārī) in charge of the Govinda temple at Vṛndāvana.

Bhāvārtha-dīpikā?

Whether Caitanyadāsa wrote another commentary on the Gīta-govinda, entitled Bhāvārtha-dīpikā,⁷¹ is uncertain.

Rūpa’s junior

As the Bāla-bodhinī quotes from Rūpa Gosvāmin’s Ujjvala-nīla-maṇi,⁷² it could not have been written earlier than 1541 A.D. If its author, Caitanyadāsa, directed Kṛṣṇadāsa’s literary activity,⁷³ then he must have been a contemporary of Rūpa Gosvāmin, whose works were accepted by all Bengal Vaiṣṇava writers as authoritative.⁷⁴ As such, the [[Plv]] work would be almost contemporaneous with Gopāla Bhaṭṭa’s Kṛṣṇa-vallabha, which also quotes from the Ujjvala-nīla-maṇi.

V Kṛṣṇadasa Kaviraja

The third Bengal commentary by Kṛṣṇadasa Kaviraja, entitled Saranga-rangada, is more well known and easily available, having been printed, but not very critically edited, by the Radharaman Press, Berhampore-Murshi-dabad in 1916. For the sake of completeness we have included and edited, from four Dacca University manuscripts, the text of this commentary also in the present edition.

Importance

From the theological point of view this commentary possesses some importance, for Krṣṇadasa was one of the most important theologians of the Bengal sect, who was trained in the authoritative school of the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins (Adi i, 37). The sectarian theology, however, which he expounds incidentally and briefly in this work, had already been systematically expounded in detail by Rupa, Sanatana and Jiva in their earlier authoritative treatises, from which Kṛṣṇadasa, as their faithful follower, does not hesitate to draw freely.

In accordance with this object Kṛṣṇadasa gives throughout esoteric and exoteric interpretations of each verse (*tatrantar-dasotthärtho vivrtya bahya-dasotthärthas tu samkṣipya maya darsayitavyah), in the light of the [[Plvi]] Rāgānuga theory⁷⁵ of devotional sentiment propounded by the school.

Follows Caitanyadasa

Although Kṛṣṇadasa refers to Gopala Bhatta as one of his Šikṣā-gurus (Adi i, 37), it is remarkable that in his commentary he prefers to follow and develop the indications of Caitanyadasa.

Govinda-lilamṛta

Although Kṛṣṇadasa’s fame rests chiefly on his Bengali metrical biography of Caitanya, entitled the Caitanya-caritamṛta, he also wrote some devotional Sanskrit works. Besides the Saranga-rangada commentary, he composed Govinda-lilamṛta, a poem in 23 cantos (comprising 2488+23=2511 verses) on the Lila of Radha and Kṛṣṇa.⁷⁶

It is written in accordance with the indication of Rupa Gosvāmin (xxiii, 94) and deals with the Aṣṭa-kaliya Lilā, or sports and pastimes of Krsna according to the different parts of the day, beginning from morning to the end [[Plvii]] of the night. It falls accordingly into three parts, Pratar-lila (i–vii), Madhyahna-lila (viii to xviii) and Nisa lila (xix to xxiii).

In this work, as in his Caitanya-caritamṛta, a reverential mention is made of the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins, including Raghunatha-dasa and Raghunatha-bhatta, to whom the poem is sometimes wrongly ascribed.⁷⁷ In his Mukta-caritra, which in its turn is quoted in the Ujjvala-nila-mani (p. 261), Raghunatha calls Kṛṣṇadasa [[Kari-bhupati|Kavi-bhūpati]]; it is likely, therefore, that Kṛṣṇadasa’s Govinda-lilamṛta was composed before both these works.

Caitanya-caritamrta

The Bengali Caitanya-caritamrta, as Kṛṣṇadāsa himself informs us, was undertaken, at the request of the Vaisnavas of Vṛndavana, at a time when its erudite author had already attained an advanced but infirm old age.⁷⁸ We are told that it was completed with exemplary patience and labour of several years in Saka 1537 (=1615 A.D.).⁷⁹ In the narrative portion the work [[Plviii]] professes to make considerable use of the previous biographical records of Caitanya composed by Murari Gupta⁸⁰, Svarupa Damodara⁸¹ and Vṛndavana-Dasa; but it is much [[Plix]] more extensive, and attempts to remedy the inadequate treatment of the previous biographers⁸², especially with regard to the closing years of Caitanya’s life. Perhaps it also utilises the personal reminiscences of the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmins, whose disciple he was and at whose command [[Plx]] the work was undertaken as a supplement to Vṛndāvana-dasa’s standard metrical Bengali biography.⁸³

[[Plxi]] Like Vṛndāvana-dāsa’s Caitanya-bhagavata⁸³ it is metrical and is divided into three parts; but it contains sixty-two chapters as against forty-two of its model, and the divisions do not correspond. The Adi, Madhya and Antya Līlā deal respectively with the three stages in Caitanya’s life, viz., the early life ending with Samnyasa, the six years of pilgrimage and the last eighteen years spent in residence at Puri. As the early life has been fairly fully narrated by Vṛndavana-dasa in thirty-two chapters, Kṛṣṇadāsa devotes only five short chapters to it (Adi xiii–xvii); but the rest of the life, to which Vṛndāvana-dasa gives only ten chapters, takes up forty-five chapters of the Caritāmṛta.

Caritamṛta

It is, however, not a Carita but a Caritamṛta, written more from the devotional than from the historical point of view. Although the work, like the other works on Caitanya’s life, was written within a century of his passing away, the Caitanya myths and legends must have rapidly grown in the meantime, and the process of deification must have been long since complete. The pious credulity of these devout writers found no difficulty in reproducing them in all seriousness.

The life of Caitanya itself is not so rich in striking external incidents as in impassioned religious consciousness; and his faithful biographers love to linger over the scenes of ecstasy, madness and miracles, the description of which swells the bulk of these exuberant metrical narratives. The abundant fancies envelop the few facts; and the colours are laid so thickly that they too often obscure or distort the great religious personality which they profess to depict so lovingly.

Literary merit

In literary merit the work of Krṣṇadasa, on account of its epic length, prolixity and prosiness, is much inferior to that of Vṛndavana-dasa, which is its acknowledged prototype. The style is terse but not very elegant nor [[Plxii]] attractive, and the versification is often poor and faulty. The author cares little for the picturesque, poetic or human possibilities of his theme. But it is a profoundly laborious and learned treatise, and by far the most authoritative with the orthodox follower of Caitanya. It is indeed a great work in Middle Bengali, but its greatness consists not so much in the literary skill or the narrative interest with which the story of a great life is told, but in the elaborate scholasticism with which it presents and exemplifies the entire theology of Bengal Vaisnavism in the life of the Master.

Its speciality lies in figuring Caitanya not only as an incarnation of Kṛṣṇa (and later on, of Radha), but mainly as an acute theologian of the devotional school.

Philosophy

The author, himself a scholar and devotee leading a celebate life at Vṛndavana in company with the six Gosvamins, shows in his work a complete familiarity with their learned theological writings, as well as with philosophical and religious literature in general; but the imposing array of Sanskrit quotations and frequent intrusion of abstruse theological matter very often impair its purely biographical interest. He does not even hesitate at the risk of absurd anachronism to put the subtle scholastic views, clearly of a later day, in the mouth of Caitanya himself.

Popularization

Hitherto all theological treatises of Bengal Vaisnavism had been written in Sanskrit; and the idea probably occurred to popularise the doctrines in the vernacular so that they should not be confined to a learned few. The choice of Kṛṣṇadāsa for this propagandist purpose by the Vṛndāvana Gosvamins, at whose direction the work is said to have been composed, was fully justified; and the elaborate treatise he produced at once took its place among the most authoritative devotional texts of the sect. It is, therefore, more than a biography. It is a remarkable [[Plxiii]] mediaeval document of mature theological scholarship of the sectarian kind, which is by no means easy or elegant to read, and which perhaps presents Caitanya and his simple impassioned faith through a disproportionately learned perspective; but from the specialist point of view, it is a work of great merit and gives a complete and masterly exposition in Bengali of the entire theological speculation of the school.

Inspiration

If Vṛndavana-dasa’s inspiration came chiefly from the Vaisnava group at Navadvipa, Kṛṣṇadasa’s inspiration came from the scholastic circle of Vṛndavana; and each in his own way throws interesting light on the different aspects of the movement.

Life

Of Krsnadasa himself we know very little. His Vaisnava modesty prevented him from speaking about himself, and we have nothing but uncorroborated legends about him. He is said to have been born at Jhāmāṭpur, near Katwa, in the district of Burdwan, son of Bhagiratha, who was a Vaidya by caste and profession, and Sunanda. He appears to have left home in early youth, inspired by Nityananda in a dream, begged his way to Vṛndavana, and lived a devout and scholarly life there till his death, which occurred probably soon after 1615 A.D. on the completion of his great work.

The Bengali Prema-vilasa (dated in Saka 1522 = 1600 A.D.) tells us that Raghunatha-dasa initiated him into the ascetic life of a Vaisnava Gosvamin; and Kṛṣṇadāsa was probably the devotional name given to him on initiation. He acknowledges the Gosvamins of Vṛndāvana as his Sikṣa-gurus (Adi i, 37) and makes a special obeisance to Rūpa and Raghunatha at the end of almost every chapter of his Caitanya-caritamrta as well as in his other works.

VI Editing troubles

The editing of the metrical text of the Krsna-karṇāmrta, as presented here, does not offer any special difficulty; for the Bengal recension is fairly uniform, and the three commentaries, with just a few minor differences of readings and one important change of verse-sequence, gives us the same text. Some independent Bengal manuscripts of the KK without the commentaries were also collated, but it was found that the text they presented was practically the same as the text of the commentators, which is edited here. In our critical notes we have included the variant readings given by Papayallaya Suri’s text (PS).

But the editing of the commentaries presented greater difficulties, especially in the matter of securing Mss of the texts. A full description of our manuscript-material will be found below. Manuscripts of Gopāla Bhaṭṭa’s Krsna-vallabha are by no means numerous nor easily available. It seems that the later popularity of Saranga-rangada was responsible for the comparative scarcity of the manuscripts of the earlier commentaries of Gopāla Bhaṭṭa and Caitanyadasa. We could at first obtain only one manuscript of Gopāla Bhaṭṭa’s commentary from the older collection of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (Ms GB). Fortunately it was a fairly correct and carefully written Devanagari manuscript; but as there were obvious mislections and doubtful readings in some places, the need of at least another independent manuscript was keenly felt. After the rough draft of the text was prepared, the publication in 1935 of the Catalogue of the Vangiya Sahitya Pariṣat, Calcutta, by Chintaharan Chakravarti [[Plxv]] revealed the existence of another manuscript of the commentary written in the Bengali script (Ms GC). This, however, turned out to be an incomplete (ending with verse 59) and carelessly copied modern manuscript. But it had considerable differences of reading, the value of which could not be determined without a third independent Ms.

As the text, thus tentatively prepared, did not prove entirely satisfactory, it was necessary to find, if possible, another complete Ms of Gopāla Bhaṭṭa’s commentary. The only other known Ms, noticed in the Catalogue of the Government Sanskrit College, Benares (entitled Suci-patram, at p. 319, no. 42), could not, however, be obtained on loan. The editor was informed by Mahamahopadhyāya Gopinath Kaviraj, Principal of the College, that the paper of the Ms in question, bearing Samvat 1662 (=1605 A.D.) as the date of transcription, had become so brittle that it was considered unsafe to send it outside. The Principal, however, laid the editor under great obligation by very kindly supplying him with a carefully prepared transcript (Ms GA), which has very materially helped in finally constituting the text of Gopāla Bhaṭṭa’s commentary. As Gopāla Bhaṭṭa is said to have survived Caitanya and died at an advanced old age, this Devanagari Ms was probably copied within fifty years of his death. As such, it is of great value in settling the text. Happily its readings are confirmed independently by our Ms GC (as well as occasionally by Rasik Mohan Vidyabhusana’s text mentioned below); and they have, therefore, been normally adopted for our text.

It subsequently [[come|came]] to the notice of the editor [[Plxvi]] that the text of Gopāla Bhaṭṭa’s commentary was printed by Rasik Mohan Vidyabhuṣaṇa in 1915 (Calcutta, Bengali era 1822) as an appendix (pp. 328-441) to his Bengali work, entitled Srikrṣṇa-mādhuri, which gives the Sanskrit text of the Kṛṣṇa-karnāmrta (in Bengali characters) with a running Bengali commentary by the author on the basis chiefly of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kaviraja’s Saranga-rangada. On consulting this text of the Krsna-vallabha, however, it was found that [[it]] hardy possessed even the value of a bad manuscript, so carelessly and uncritically the work of collating, editing and printing had been done. The editor informs us (p. 335) that he has seen two manuscripts of the work, but he does not give any detailed description of the Mss themselves. The first manuscript, he says, he found at Puri in 1915 in some unnamed Vaisnava temple; it was in Devanagari characters and very incorrect. But before he could finish copying out the whole Ms the custodians withdrew their permission; and the portion he had copied could not presumably be of much value, since it appears to have been neither compared nor completed. He informs us that he subsequently obtained another Bengali Ms from Mr. Kshitish Chandra Basu of Brahmacarya Vidyalaya, Ranchi. From this, he tells us, he copied out “somehow” the remaining portion of the commentary (avasiṣṭa slokagulira tikā yena tena prakāre likhiyā lailāma); it is not known whether the earlier portion was compared with that obtained from the first Ms. Apparently the text, which was prepared and printed, was a composite one based on parts of two Mss; but no indication is given as to the extent utilised of each of the Mss, nor is there any information as to why both the Mss were not utilised for the earlier common portion of the text. We are told that his second Ms was “not so incorrect” as the first, but this impression is not given by his printed text, as well as by his frank confession that he somehow printed the text (ami yaha hayeche, p. 333). We have not been able to profit by this edition, nor did we think [[Plxvii]] it necessary to note and utilise its variant (but often corrupt) readings. Hopelessly incorrect as the text is, it has, however, [[helped]] to confirm generally the readings of GA-GC Mss, which have been in most cases accepted in our text.

With regard to the Subodhani⁸⁴ commentary of Caitanyadasa, however, the editor was more fortunate. Besides a fairly correct manuscript of the Dacca University collection (Ms CA), which is undated but which appears to be fairly old, he could utilise a Vangiya Sahitya Pariṣad Ms (Ms CB), dated in Saka 1590 (=1668 A.D.), as well as a Devanagari Ms from the Poona Bhandarkar Institute collection (Ms CC), which closely agrees with and independently supports the Dacca University Ms CA obtained from the well known Vaisnava centre of Katwa, Burdwan. A further search revealed the fact that the text of the KK with this commentary was printed in Bengali characters in a little known Bengali Vaisnava journal, called Sajjana-toşani vol. x (Calcutta 1898), by Kedar Nath Datta Bhakti-vinoda, with a Bengali translation. A copy of this text was very kindly lent to the present editor by Mr. Dinesh Charan Das of Sylhet, a Vaisnava scholar, who has himself published a selection from the Krsna- karṇāmrta with his own lucid commentary in Sanskrit and Bengali. On comparing this text of the Subodhani, which, however, is not very well edited and printed, with those of our manuscripts it was found that to some extent it differed, especially in the earlier parts (where, for instance, it incorporates a great deal of matter from Krṣṇadasa’s commentary); but since no account of the manuscript [[Plxviii]] material is found and no indication given regarding the method of editing, it could not be seriously utilised for our critical notes or our text, which are based entirely on the three manuscripts mentioned above. The Ms CB, in spite of its fairly early date, gives an entirely different version from that of CA and CC, which closely but independently agree. For our text we have generally accepted the agreements of CA and CC. After the text of the Subodhani was ready for the Press, a rotograph transcript of the Bodleian Ms (Aufrecht no. 230) was received through the kind efforts of Professor F.W. Thomas. On examination it was found to agree very closely with our Ms CB. It became clear that the Subodhani commentary existed in two recensions, one longer, represented by our CA, CC and the other shorter, given by CB and this Ms (CD). We have ultimately accepted, for reasons given above, the longer recension, which, in our opinion, preserves the better tradition. Moreover, CB and CD contain so many lacunae and corrupt passages that it was difficult to constitute a fully satisfactory text from them.

For the Saranga-rangada commentary of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, the editor has used four Dacca University manuscripts written in Bengali script, one of which is dated in Saka 1665 = 1743 A.D., as well as the fairly faithfully, but often carelessly, printed text in Bengali characters, published by the Radharaman Press, 2nd Edition, Berhampore-Murshidabad, 1916. As this material was found sufficient, it was thought unnecessary to collate the very large number of Mss which is available of this popular commentary.⁸⁵ Of these four Mss, [[Plxix]] KA, KB and KD generally agree with one another, while the printed text (apart from its errors and misprints) agrees in most cases with KC. Our text is eclectic; but it follows generally the agreements of KA, KB and KD, which, on the whole, appear to have preserved a better text-tradition. It is worth remarking that these three Mss come from the well known Vaisnava centres of Katwa and Srikhanda, Dt. Burdwan.

VII Acknowledgements

In the preparation of this work, which has spread out over more than three years, the editor has received assistance and encouragement from many friends, colleagues and pupils, only a part of which can be acknowledged here with pleasure and gratitude. In the laborious task of collating some of the manuscripts and comparing the text he is under obligation to the enthusiasm, carefulness and accuracy of his former pupil and research student, Dr. Rajendra Chandra Hazra. Sincere thanks are due to the courtesy of Mahamahopadhyaya Gopinath Kaviraj, Principal, Government Sanskrit College, Benares, which enabled the editor to utilise the old manuscript of Gopāla Bhaṭṭa’s commentary, existing in the library of the [[Plxx]] College. It would not have been possible for the editor to make use of the Bodleian Ms of Caitanyadasa’s Subodhani but for the kindly ways of Professor F. W. Thomas, who assisted him in obtaining a rotograph copy of this Ms, as well as of the Bodleian Ms of Kṛṣṇadasa Kaviraja’s Saranga-rangada. To his friends, Professor Suniti Kumar Chatterji and Mr. Chintaharan Chakravarti, respectively, he is indebted for procuring for him on loan the manuscripts of the Bengal Asiatic Society and the Vangiya Sahitya Pariṣad. To the prompt and courteous service of his friend, Mr. P. K. Gode, Curator of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, the editor is grateful for the loan of a large number of the Institute manuscripts, including those utilised for the text.

The mediaeval religious movements of India, with their devotional Sanskrit texts and highly scholastic sectarian commentaries, do not appear to have received as much recognition in Europe as they deserve. In India they still constitute the basis of the living faiths of people; but the texts themselves, always reverentially acknowledged, are yet hardly accessible and seldom critically studied. The present editor, actuated by the very generous reception of his edition of Rupa Gosvamin’s Padyavali in this Series, seeks to bring before the scholarly world, as well as before the general public, another highly interesting mediaeval devotional text along with its sectarian interpretation by three well known authorities of the Bengal school of Vaisnavism. His modest labours will be amply repaid if, despite shortcomings, it draws greater attention to an important phase of Indian culture which has not, so far, been adequately studied.

---